Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:30:29 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: Matthew Emmerton <matt@compar.com> Cc: FreeBSD-CURRENT Mailing List <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom? Message-ID: <20030723223029.GA63469@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <009e01c35168$c0738270$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> References: <20030723220757.49A565D07@ptavv.es.net> <009e01c35168$c0738270$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:21:23PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > > > Folks, ... > > > Can anyone provide some pointers or links that would bring me > > > up-to-date on the current state of affairs on this subject, > > > especially as it related to FreeBSD or *BSD in general? > > > > The folks at Broadcom have not been willing to release any information > > on their 800.11g chips for fear of violating FCC regs. The required > > NDA would prohibit the release of the source. You can program > > both the transmit power and frequency if you have this. (I make no > > claim as to whether their concerns have any validity.) > > > > For that reason there has been no open-source support for these chips. > > Why would Broadcom be scared? Obviously it's the _driver_ that controls the > power/freq output of the chip, so the responsibility of staying within FCC > regs is that of the driver authors. Of course, the "no warranty" aspects of > open source drivers turns a blind eye to liability, but would things really > come back to Broadcom? Simple: ETOOMANYCORPORATELAWYERS is most likely the culprit.. -- | / o / /_ _ wilko@FreeBSD.org |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030723223029.GA63469>